Forums

I've been seeing some comments and posts that the Air Pack Expansion is out of print?

I'm kinda up in the air on the air rules myself.

Is M44 slowly moving away from the use of air rules in newer scenarios, maybe moving away from using the air rules at all any longer?

I was just curious as to what most folks feelings here on the air rules are?

Like I said, I'm kinda on the fence regarding the air rules myself right now.

Without the air rules, the games seem to be very clear and straight forward in their presentation and play. A great deal of fun and interest can be had by new players as the game is easy to grasp and new folks don't have to struggle with rules.

But with the air rules, the fine balance of rules vs playability seems to be upset just enough to make things feel kind of, well...awkward, at times.

Don't get me wrong, I love everything about M44, and DoW has done a first rate job of supporting the game. It's just that lately I've been kinda avoiding scenarios with the air rules.

What do you all think, is the game better with, or without the air rules?

Is the air pack out of print now, so that the airplanes can be reintroduced in a new expansion all on their own without the terrain tiles and the scenario book?

Well, have you tried my air rules yet? My air rules allow you to strafe, bomb, kamikazee, and do proper ground interdiction to destroy bridges and roads and support facilities, and do air interdiction. The air unit is only on the board when landed or making an attack. Otherwise the air units are flying around the battle space. They are available for download on my user page or here:http://cdn.daysofwonder.com/uploads/userpages/272628/_4342.p df

Like Jaykay, the Air Pack is the only Memoir 44 product I don't own and I just started playing at Christmas 2010. My group really has no interest in purchasing it nor do I. For whatever reason, we feel it is not necessary to our enjoyment of the game.

Air Pack brings several new elements to the table. Planes and Air Rules are only one of them. In addition:

It has Landing Craft, which give more mobility to amphibious invasions.

A new terrain type, Gullies, which is the green-board version of desert Wadis.

Updated versions of 60 scenarios, often including roads or other items that didn't exist when the earlier expansions were originally released. It's like getting a bunch of new scenarios. (In fact, I noticed that the side that usually loses a scenario tends to be the side that gets more advantage from that scenario's Air rules.)

And the Summary Cards deck.

Air Rules add a new dimension to the game, literally. They had to design it carefully, so the planes could play a significant role, but not a dominant one. (And sometimes, the players wind up not even bringing their planes on the board.)

The tricky thing about planes is that they can come at you at any time, from any direction.

I think Air Rules are a good addition to many scenarios. The one place where I find them to be problematic is scenarios with entrenched or back-row artillery. They make artilleries much easier to kill.

I probably play Air Rules a majority of of the time against opponents who I know are comfortable with them.

I like the Air Rules and think that DOW has come up with a good balance to using them. But like everything else about the game, everyone has their preferences. That is what is so marvelous about Memoir '44, it has so many options in terms of play, and yet the same basic fundamentals.

One of those posts about the Air Pack being out of print was probably mine. I was posing the question based on rumors I heard. I haven't found it hard to find in the US though.

I've played with the Air Pack once on a Battle Map and didn't find it all that enjoyable. It was ok. To be fair I should probably play it a few more time before passing judgement.

I also introduce the game to a lot of new players which kind of limits the opportunity to use the Air Pack. I don't want to overwhelm them.

I think what really bothers me is the idea that I need to buy the Air Pack, which I may or may not enjoy, just to get the goodies that everyone else raves about (cards, terrain, etc.). Right now I make my own cards using old basketball cards, the card database, and a gluestick.

I wish DOW would just sell the cards separately perhaps as some part of card subscription service.

However, like others I will probably break down and buy the darn thing anyway . . .

I've long been on record as being against the air rules, mostly for historical reasons. "Awkward" is a great way to describe them.

The reason the air rules are so awkward, I think, is because they try to force the planes into more of a tactical role than their historic role, which was overwhelmingly strategic/support, not tactical.

During the war, roles played by air power occurred "off-map": attacking hardpoints *before* the ground assault, attacking reinforcing units on their way to the front, blowing up bridges *before* the army got there. It would be rare to see an air strike take place among two engaged armies. The technology just wasn't there yet to coordinate; it was hard to distinguish friend from foe at close quarters on a battlefield. That's not to say it never happened -- particularly in the Pacific and particularly late in the war -- but it was still relatively rare.

With M44, you have basically a tactical game -- how to use terrain, fire, and maneuver -- with a few basic strategic decisions. Air power just doesn't fit, and is adequately represented by the Air Power card, abstract though it is, IMHO.

The air pack rules don't allow units on the ground to fire back at the aircraft. I know that people say that's part of the reason for the "air check", but an air check for flying over a minefield!? I gave artillery units the ability to have anti-air artillery in my rules. I also saw a documentary about the ground interdiction role of aircraft in WWII. I gave my rules the ability to take out bridges, supply depots, road hexes, railroad hexes and stations, airfield hexes, and more. The reason to take out a road hex is to deny your opponent the ability to quickly move units up to the front from rear areas. I also gave units being strafed the ability to fire back. And since bombing was imprecise in WWII, (there were times when the bombs were dropped on friendly forces) I made my rules so that you might miss the first targeted hex. Because air craft fly so much faster than armor, I made my rules so that the air units are only on the board when landed, or when making an attack. A P-40 flies at about 369 miles per hour, while a M-4 Sherman has a top speed of 24 miles per hour. In the time that it takes a Sherman to move a half a mile, a P-40 has moved more than seven and a half miles.

I've long been on record as being against the air rules, mostly for historical reasons. "Awkward" is a great way to describe them.

The reason the air rules are so awkward, I think, is because they try to force the planes into more of a tactical role than their historic role, which was overwhelmingly strategic/support, not tactical.

During the war, roles played by air power occurred "off-map": attacking hardpoints *before* the ground assault, attacking reinforcing units on their way to the front, blowing up bridges *before* the army got there. It would be rare to see an air strike take place among two engaged armies. The technology just wasn't there yet to coordinate; it was hard to distinguish friend from foe at close quarters on a battlefield. That's not to say it never happened -- particularly in the Pacific and particularly late in the war -- but it was still relatively rare.

I'm in complete agreement.

sam1812 wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 23:36

Air Pack brings several new elements to the table. Planes and Air Rules are only one of them. In addition:

It has Landing Craft, which give more mobility to amphibious invasions.

A new terrain type, Gullies, which is the green-board version of desert Wadis.

Updated versions of 60 scenarios, often including roads or other items that didn't exist when the earlier expansions were originally released. It's like getting a bunch of new scenarios. (In fact, I noticed that the side that usually loses a scenario tends to be the side that gets more advantage from that scenario's Air rules.)

And the Summary Cards deck.

I'd say, get it while you can.

Oh yeah, I'm all about the contents of the air pack, it was a great buy. An updated, soft cover scenario book, a bunch of new terrain tiles, the summary card deck...hell, it was worth the cost just for that stuff alone.

eldonion wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 21:36

It really is worth the price just for the extra bits and pieces

I absolutely agree!

50th wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 15:16

The air pack rules don't allow units on the ground to fire back at the aircraft. I know that people say that's part of the reason for the "air check", but an air check for flying over a minefield!?

That's a great example of what I mean by awkward.

OldBloodandGuts wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 10:36

With M44, you have basically a tactical game -- how to use terrain, fire, and maneuver -- with a few basic strategic decisions. Air power just doesn't fit, and is adequately represented by the Air Power card, abstract though it is, IMHO.

I've long been on record as being against the air rules, mostly for historical reasons. "Awkward" is a great way to describe them.

The reason the air rules are so awkward, I think, is because they try to force the planes into more of a tactical role than their historic role, which was overwhelmingly strategic/support, not tactical.

During the war, roles played by air power occurred "off-map": attacking hardpoints *before* the ground assault, attacking reinforcing units on their way to the front, blowing up bridges *before* the army got there. It would be rare to see an air strike take place among two engaged armies. The technology just wasn't there yet to coordinate; it was hard to distinguish friend from foe at close quarters on a battlefield. That's not to say it never happened -- particularly in the Pacific and particularly late in the war -- but it was still relatively rare.

The one exception was with the German army of 1940-1942: their air force was completely tactical (which was the reason why they failed in the Battle of Britain, using a mainly tactical force for strategic purposes). They weren't concerned with anything outside the battlefield. The Stukas just bombed forward positions (certainly not "off-map"), and then ground forces immediately went on the attack. True, in Operation Barbarossa, they attacked "off-map", but only Soviet planes; most of the time, it was always operations in support of the army.

The one exception was with the German army of 1940-1942: their air force was completely tactical (which was the reason why they failed in the Battle of Britain, using a mainly tactical force for strategic purposes). They weren't concerned with anything outside the battlefield. The Stukas just bombed forward positions (certainly not "off-map"), and then ground forces immediately went on the attack. True, in Operation Barbarossa, they attacked "off-map", but only Soviet planes; most of the time, it was always operations in support of the army.[/quote]

The battle of britain failed because Hitler in rage over berlin being bombed switched the targets of the attacks from strategic loctations of importance to bombing britain and other cities

The battle of britain failed because Hitler in rage over berlin being bombed switched the targets of the attacks from strategic loctations of importance to bombing britain and other cities

Even without Hitler changing the focus to British cities, the Luftwaffe offensive against British airfields wasn't successful. According to Air Vice Marshal Peter Dye, Great Britain was producing enough replacement fighters to offset fighter losses in the air, and that there were more British fighter pilots than German fighter pilots. Air Chief Marshall Park himself said that the Luftwaffe achieved very little concerning the destruction of British airfields.

And the first attacks on the British radar stations failed because the Luftwaffe didn't attack any of the infrastructure like phone lines, etc. None of the Luftwaffe High Command had any realization of how crucial radar was to the British defense.

The one exception was with the German army of 1940-1942: their air force was completely tactical (which was the reason why they failed in the Battle of Britain, using a mainly tactical force for strategic purposes). They weren't concerned with anything outside the battlefield. The Stukas just bombed forward positions (certainly not "off-map"), and then ground forces immediately went on the attack. True, in Operation Barbarossa, they attacked "off-map", but only Soviet planes; most of the time, it was always operations in support of the army.

I think we're arguing a very subtle distinction here. Certainly the stukas benefited from an advanced (for the time) radio coordination and communication between ground troops and planes that led to a more tactical role than many other fighter-bomber and dive-bomber planes of the period, but I would still maintain they did *most* of their work well in advance of the ground troops, hitting bridges, supply lines, shipping, reinforcement columns, etc. before the troops were "on the map."

The battle of britain failed because Hitler in rage over berlin being bombed switched the targets of the attacks from strategic loctations of importance to bombing britain and other cities

Even without Hitler changing the focus to British cities, the Luftwaffe offensive against British airfields wasn't successful. According to Air Vice Marshal Peter Dye, Great Britain was producing enough replacement fighters to offset fighter losses in the air, and that there were more British fighter pilots than German fighter pilots. Air Chief Marshall Park himself said that the Luftwaffe achieved very little concerning the destruction of British airfields.

And the first attacks on the British radar stations failed because the Luftwaffe didn't attack any of the infrastructure like phone lines, etc. None of the Luftwaffe High Command had any realization of how crucial radar was to the British defense.

Hmmm, that runs against what I have read over the years on this campaign. As usual, different sources on the same military history subject conflict.

Sort of curious that a smaller air force would have more fighter pilots than a larger one. I had read that there was a critical shortage of RAF pilots. Build all the fighters you want - without trained pilots they are next to worthless.

As to the destruction of the airfields, that would have been nearly impossible to achieve. But I do not think that was the point of it all. Attacking the airfields was a way of engaging the RAF when and where they could not avoid battle.

Another factor was that the German fighters flew close escort as opposed which put them at a severe disadvantage. A better approach would have been to fly escort more at a distance and that would allow them to engage the RAF on more even terms.

The battle of britain failed because Hitler in rage over berlin being bombed switched the targets of the attacks from strategic loctations of importance to bombing britain and other cities

Even without Hitler changing the focus to British cities, the Luftwaffe offensive against British airfields wasn't successful. According to Air Vice Marshal Peter Dye, Great Britain was producing enough replacement fighters to offset fighter losses in the air, and that there were more British fighter pilots than German fighter pilots. Air Chief Marshall Park himself said that the Luftwaffe achieved very little concerning the destruction of British airfields.

And the first attacks on the British radar stations failed because the Luftwaffe didn't attack any of the infrastructure like phone lines, etc. None of the Luftwaffe High Command had any realization of how crucial radar was to the British defense.

Hmmm, that runs against what I have read over the years on this campaign. As usual, different sources on the same military history subject conflict.

Sort of curious that a smaller air force would have more fighter pilots than a larger one. I had read that there was a critical shortage of RAF pilots. Build all the fighters you want - without trained pilots they are next to worthless.

As to the destruction of the airfields, that would have been nearly impossible to achieve. But I do not think that was the point of it all. Attacking the airfields was a way of engaging the RAF when and where they could not avoid battle.

Another factor was that the German fighters flew close escort as opposed which put them at a severe disadvantage. A better approach would have been to fly escort more at a distance and that would allow them to engage the RAF on more even terms.

From what I have read about the Battle of Britain, Britain was on verge of defeat, due in part to lack of experienced pilots, until Germany gave them breathing room by switching the attack to civilian targets.

However, like others I will probably break down and buy the darn thing anyway . . .

And two weeks later, I did just that. Opening it now . . .

It's a good deal, I'm glad I bought it.

Lately though, I've found myself passing on scenarios with mandatory air rules. I don't know why, but I've been finding myself kinda distracted by the air rules and having funner games where they aren't used. The air rules are basically the only rules I ever have to stop to look up in the rules book.

Lately though, I've found myself passing on scenarios with mandatory air rules. I don't know why, but I've been finding myself kinda distracted by the air rules and having funner games where they aren't used. The air rules are basically the only rules I ever have to stop to look up in the rules book.

I guess I really like not having to stop to hunt rules.

The Air Pack does take some getting used to and it does add those extra rules, so I can see how some people don't want to bother with them if they only have time for a quick game of Memoir '44. It might help you with the rules if you download my Player Aid because then all of the rules are together and you can check them more quickly.

I have to admit that I sometimes don't have time to use the Air Rules either, but I really enjoy them when I do have time! When the Online game eventually includes the Air Rules, I'll definately play with them all the time because it won't require any extra set-up or anything!

Air rules do seem a bit strange, planes only moving 4 hexes, when in real life they whizzed around. Taking out bunkers and artillery wth comparative ease. Thise seems to be the down side.

However, the planes look really cool when they are on the board, and they certainly pose a threat to the oposing side ( which I'm sure they did in real life)

And I have had some really good dog fights with both players chasing each others plans around the board.

So basically I'm all for the air pack and air rules as they stand.

Aren't opinions great?

Fred the Obscure.

I had the same problems with the air pack. A Sherman tank goes roughly 24 mph, while a P-40 goes 369 mph. That's why I wrote my own air rules, plus a friend was at a convention with R Borg, who said that he wished that units on the ground had more of an anti-air role, my rules give them that. Give 'em a try!